The Content subject to complaint appeared on the Whale Oil Beef Hooked website and was titled “Special Investigation: Charity Begins at Home.” It focused on the registered charity, The New Zealand Network Charity, and included a sound recording of a conversation between the Complainant, founder Angela Sothern and Editor Cameron Slater.

The Complainant raised concerns about the accuracy of the article and the content of the recording and said the Publisher was rude and disrespectful and it was irresponsible “to not have ensured the things he was accusing me [of] were correct, founded and evidenced”.

The Complaints Committee found the information presented was an accurate reflection of the recording and included links to other sources. The Complaints Committee accepted the Publisher had made reasonable efforts to ensure that news and current affairs content was accurate and did not mislead in relation to all material points of fact.

The Committee noted the Complainant had approached the Publisher to promote her charity and it considered the recorded discussion was robust questioning from a journalistic standpoint. The Committee concluded that taking into account the context and public interest in the subject, the Publisher had dealt with the Complainant fairly. It noted recording interviews was common and acceptable practice in the media industry.

Taking into account the article was not presented in a way that it would cause panic, unwarranted alarm or undue stress, the Committee ruled the article observed the requirements of Standard 5 Responsible Content and was not in breach of Standards 1, 3 and 5 or Guideline 3(a) of the OMSA Code of Standards and ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

I doubt even the harshest critic of Cameron will find fault with this ruling, if they read his story and the full decision. I think he raised very legitimate concerns over the charity.

Related Stories

Comments (10)

Fentex

I dislike the idea of things like OMSA.

I don’t think a person ought submit them-self to such agencies because if a person is well meaning and well intentioned there is nothing to be gained by submitting their right to free expression to a third parties authority, and the existence of such agencies is a wedge for inserting the concept we ought have our right of free expression monitored by an authority.

Tim Watkin; …there are other blogs where more improper and unworthy things are written, so it’s good for those of us who care about such standards to help establish a rule of law that raises the bar.

…is what bugs me. Establish a rule of law, eh?

The first time I heard about the Press Council’s expansion to blogging I wrote that I thought it sounded a little like the beginning of regulation of online ‘speech’, and now we have a law before government suggesting up to five years imprisonment for writing that offends people.

I wonder where, and who, will establish the standards that’s measured against?

If you have high standards a third party only exists as some kind of authority to claim respectability against. Ones argument and attitude ought be able to withstand examination without external validation.

Nukuleka

Love the benign way in which you write “I doubt even the harshest critic of Cameron will find fault with this ruling’! Those of us who live in the real world and witness on a daily level the sheer viciousness and lack of any ability of progressives to look at issues from a balanced viewpoint know full well that the Standardista and Daily Bloggers will indeed ‘find fault with the ruling.’ As with so much of the deranged and MSM our black is their white and our white their black. They cannot but help themselves, the poor deluded souls!

peterwn

There is no reason for the headnote to name the committee members but the actual decision will most probably name the members who heard it, or at least the chair (most probably someone who has clocked up 7 years experience as a barrister or solicitor but does not need to hold a current practicing certificate – there has been extensive discussions about this on Whaleoil concerning the required qualifications of the chair of the Real Estate Disciplinary Tribunal).

Nostradamus

Peterwn:

I’ve read the decision – DPF has linked to it above. The decision doesn’t mention which Complaints Committee members considered the complaint – unless I missed that part. That omission, to me, is non-transparent.